Supreme Court SLP filing checklist: what to verify before submission

An SLP checklist is more than a list of documents

A Special Leave Petition filing set may contain the petition, list of dates, impugned judgment, annexures, affidavit, vakalatnama, applications and listing proforma. Before registration, the Supreme Court Registry scrutinises the filing for conformity with the Rules and the Court's practice.¹²

A basic checklist can confirm that these documents are present. The more difficult review is whether the information repeated across them remains consistent.

For example, the presence of an affidavit does not establish that it verifies the petition actually being filed. Its dates, paragraph references and page count may also need to correspond with that petition. Similarly, attaching annexures is different from checking whether their labels, sequence and page references agree across the petition, list of dates and index.³⁴

This is why a final review should examine both individual documents and the relationships between them. The areas below provide an overview of that review. They are not an exhaustive or official Registry checklist, and the applicable requirements depend on the matter.

1. Parties, cause title and authority

The parties named in the petition should correspond with the impugned judgment. Their descriptions, addresses and representation may also appear in the cause title, memo of parties, vakalatnama, affidavit and listing proforma.⁵

A review therefore asks more than whether a vakalatnama is attached. It considers whether it has been properly executed and accepted, whether the relevant authority is present where someone acts for a party, and whether the names and representation remain consistent across the filing set.⁶

• Do the party names and descriptions agree with the impugned judgment?
• Are the vakalatnama, signatures and authority documents complete where applicable?

2. Petition, judgment and case particulars

The SLP must follow the prescribed form and be accompanied by the material required under the applicable Rules. The particulars of the impugned judgment—court, case number, date and parties—may be repeated in several parts of the filing.⁷

A typographical difference in one document may appear small when that document is read alone. It becomes material when the petition, judgment, affidavit and proforma identify the proceeding differently.

• Is the correct impugned judgment or order included, together with any applicable exemption or additional lower-court material?
• Are its identifying particulars consistent everywhere they appear?

3. Annexures, index and page references

The Rules and the Advocate's Check List address the order, identification and indexing of annexures. References in the petition should lead to the document and page the reader expects to find.³⁸

This creates several connected comparisons: the petition against the list of dates, the list of dates against the annexures, and the annexures against the index and pagination. Confirming only that an annexure exists does not test those relationships.

• Are annexures separately identified and arranged as required?
• Do their labels and page references agree across the petition, list of dates and index?

4. Affidavits, dates and certifications

The supporting affidavit verifies the petition and list of dates. The Handbook and Registry check lists also address its execution, attestation, identification and relationship with the petition.⁴⁹

The relevant review is therefore not merely “affidavit attached.” It is whether the affidavit corresponds to the filing set in front of the reviewer, including the applicable dates and document references. The same principle applies to required certificates and declarations by the Advocate-on-Record.

• Does the affidavit correspond with the petition it verifies?
• Are the required signatures, dates, attestations and certifications present and consistent?

5. Limitation, court fee and required applications

Limitation and court fee receive separate attention during scrutiny. The filing may also require an accompanying application—for example, for condonation of delay, substitution, a certified-copy or translation exemption, or another case-specific procedural request.¹⁰¹¹

The important relationship is between the circumstances disclosed by the filing and the applications actually included. If the petition relies on an exemption or procedural request, the supporting application, affidavit and fee must be considered together where applicable.

• Do the circumstances of the matter require a separate application?
• Is every application referred to in the filing actually present with its applicable supporting material?

6. Case-specific procedural requirements

Not every SLP engages the same requirements. Criminal matters may raise surrender-related requirements; vernacular material may require translation or an exemption application; and the nature of the order or proceedings below may require additional documents.¹²¹³

This is one reason a universal document list is insufficient. The filing route and facts of the matter determine which requirements must be applied before the documents can be checked against them.

• Have the requirements specific to a civil or criminal SLP been identified?
• Have additional requirements arising from the matter been reflected across the complete filing set?

A checklist sees documents. Verification sees relationships.

Consider three examples:

The difficulty is not knowing that these documents should be reviewed. It is verifying every relevant relationship across a filing set that may run to hundreds of pages, while applying requirements that vary with the matter and may be supplemented by Registry directions.

A manual checklist can organise attention. It cannot, by itself, ensure that every repeated fact and procedural dependency has been reconciled across the complete set.

Where Nyave fits

Nyave is building deterministic pre-filing verification for Supreme Court SLP filings. The completed filing set is checked against a source-linked procedural rule base drawn from the Supreme Court Rules, the Registry's Handbook and applicable circulars. The report identifies potential inconsistencies for the Advocate-on-Record to review.¹⁴

Detection runs through a deterministic rule engine, not an AI model. AI may explain a finding in plain language, but it does not decide whether a potential defect exists. Nyave supports the Advocate-on-Record's review; it does not provide legal advice, replace Registry scrutiny or guarantee registration.

Advocates-on-Record can learn more about Nyave's approach or request access at nyave.in.